Suggestions for photo sharing sites?
MaryL
photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and would
like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who travelled with
me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have checked out several
photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.), and most of them will
arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6" dimensions. That seems to be
done so people can order online, but I can print these same photos myself
and they look just fine. Those same sites offer an opportunity to
individually set cropping sizes, but that would take a great deal of time
because there are so many of them.
Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested, and
I am going to look into that.
Thanks,
MaryL
tony cooper
You really haven't explained what you want to do. Do you want to put
up the images so other people can see them, or do you want to put up
the images so other people can download them or order prints?
I've used several photo hosting sites, and none of the crop the images
to any specified ratio. Some have maximum dimensions, but the ratio
will be what you upload.
You can do a nice album presentation or slide show with JAlbum (free)
or Photobucket (free), and both have bulk uploaders. Neither requires
any particular crop ratio. There will be a maximum size, though.
I don't use Shutterfly or Snapfish, and wouldn't touch Picasa with a
ten-foot pole, so I can't comment on what crop ratios they require.
If any.
If you are willing to pay for a service, I recommend SmugMug. For a
large number of photos, you can set up several galleries. See mine at
All three of these hosts can be Googled.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Twibil
>
> If you are willing to pay for a service, I recommend SmugMug. For a
> large number of photos, you can set up several galleries. See mine at
Forget something, did we?
tony cooper
No, actually I changed my mind and forgot to change the post. I was
going to provide a link and thought better of it. It's not hard to
find, though.
Dave P.
news:468s159qqpals2b72...@4ax.com...
snipped bits
>
> I don't use Shutterfly or Snapfish, and wouldn't touch Picasa with a
> ten-foot pole, so I can't comment on what crop ratios they require.
> If any.
>
Hi,
I'm just starting to play with Picasa on my PC and intend to try it for web
albums to share pictures with friends. Why wouldn't you touch Picasa; is it
a anti-Google thing or is there something wrong with the product itself?
--
Regards,
Dave P.
tony cooper
It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
to manage my own files.
GregS
When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by my
internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
tony cooper
wrote:
I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
knowledge or want to learn html.
ray
One possibility would be to set up a personal web site - then you can post
what you like, how you like. I beleive netfirms.com has some free hosting
available - commercial ones start at $60/year and offer greater resources.
GregS
Very minimal with an editor like ACDSee. It makes the pages. You can make the
pictures any size, the thumnails any size, any # of pages, any colored pages.
If you can't do FTP, your an internet dumbo.
greg
tony cooper
wrote:
Why should she bother? I learned html for a specific purpose, but why
should someone who wants to put up some vacation photos bother when
there are sites around like JAlbum or Photobucket that allow her to
just do what she wants to do without extra steps?
Kristian Kjerstad
>
> It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
> to manage my own files.
When did Picasa do this? I download from camera with Canon Utility to
year/month folders, and use Picasa to browse the pictures and upload to
Picasaweb (1024 MB for free). The only time I've seen Picasa make a new
folder is when you edit pictures - then a new hidden folder named
"Originals" are made containing the original picture.
--
Kristian Kjerstad
Chris Malcolm
Only if you let it do that. Like you I like to manage my own directory
structures, so I told Picasa to stick with them, which it quite
happily does. I do let it create subdirectories within my image files
in which to automatically store the originals when I do some editing
so that I can always restore the original, which I regard as a useful
and convenient feature which saves me the bother of doing it myself.
--
Chris Malcolm
GregS
I think most suck thats why. I hate viewing on those sites. Its so much easier
to view on a page without all the advertisements and having limited power
to size as you please. For viewing by specific individuals a specified site
is the ultimate. For viewing by the public in general, a site like photobucket
is likely going to be easier to search for titles and view. A specific site also
offers some security from all kinds of people looking at pictures that
you don't want everybody looking at.
greg
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:07:10 +0100, "Dave P."
>> <dave_dot_petty@removebaesystems_dot_com> wrote:
>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:468s159qqpals2b72...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>snipped bits
>>>>
>>>> I don't use Shutterfly or Snapfish, and wouldn't touch Picasa with a
>>>> ten-foot pole, so I can't comment on what crop ratios they require.
>>>> If any.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm just starting to play with Picasa on my PC and intend to try it for web
>>>albums to share pictures with friends. Why wouldn't you touch Picasa; is it
>>>a anti-Google thing or is there something wrong with the product itself?
>
>> It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
>> to manage my own files.
>
>Only if you let it do that. Like you I like to manage my own directory
>structures, so I told Picasa to stick with them, which it quite
>happily does. I do let it create subdirectories within my image files
>in which to automatically store the originals when I do some editing
>so that I can always restore the original, which I regard as a useful
>and convenient feature which saves me the bother of doing it myself.
If you and Kristian (the other reply) are happy with Picasa, then use
it. I don't like it, I don't like it creating subdirectories, and I
don't like it storing my originals and making a copy of my edit, and I
don't like the web interface.
I shoot RAW, keep my .DNG files for future edits, make my edits in CS4
as .psds, put saved-as .jpgs up, and organize with Lightroom. Those
are my preferences.
I use Photobucket for certain projects, I use JAlbum for certain
projects, and I have a SmugMug gallery. I recommend these
applications because I think they work well. I don't recommend what I
don't like. I'm not on a campaign to eliminate Picasa or discourage
others from using it. I'm saying I don't like it myself. There's
no need for argument.
tony cooper
wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. Photobucket images can
be private and set to requiring a password to view. My SmugMug site
has public galleries and private galleries. Passwords are required to
view the private galleries.
My SmugMug images will view at the size submitted if that is clicked
or at any one of 7 different sizes. My SmugMug pages have no
advertisements.
Dave Cohen
This probably isn't what you want, but to simply share pictures with
guests you invite, this site http://www.pixentral.com/ couldn't be
easier. Upload to a unique directory, they give you a url which you then
email to those you invite. Downside is images are only retained for
around thirty days and you can't download (can order prints). No sign
up, no passwords no hassle.
Dave Cohen
GregS
Well it might be easy and OK. Its also easier to use a point and shoot.
greg
You DSLR-TROLLS Are So Fucking Lame
You need to clarify that statement. It's easier to use any camera in its
green-labeled "AUTO" mode. To this date, during over 40 years of
photography, I have yet to put any camera on its "AUTO" setting. DSLRs are
just as simple to use for the casual snapshooter when set to their P&S
"AUTO" mode. Considering that all DSLR owners pride their cameras on
auto-focus and machine-gunning auto burst speeds, it becomes obvious that
the vast majority of them always use their cameras in rudimentary
snapshooters' P&S "AUTO" modes whenever possible. All of the higher-end P&S
cameras have just as much, and many P&S cameras have even more, options and
settings than any top-shelf DSLRs. I defy any DSLRs-only owner to learn to
use the vast capabilities and intricacies of any CHDK P&S camera within one
month if they've never used it before. I helped to create CHDK and even I
haven't yet used all of its capabilities during the last 2.5 years of its
existence. It all depends on how you want to use those P&S cameras and what
your level of photography expertise might be. It's obvious from your wholly
simple-minded statement that your ability to function around cameras is
rather low on the evolutionary ladder. No doubt, if there was a
photo-hosting site called SlugMug your photography would be welcomed there.
GregS
I'll clarify. If you can learn to use a camera, then you can learn how to use
the internet.
I actually have failed at getting anywhere close to learning a new
camera I bought. Somewhere way down in the screens and tables is
a way to manually focus. I can't even begin to tell how to do that.
It s Fuji SD2000HD Its not a very intuitive camera to learn.
greg
Twibil
>
> >Forget something, did we?
>
> No, actually I changed my mind and forgot to change the post.
Classic "whoosh".
Bob Larter
Some of us use cameras that don't have an "AUTO" mode. Maybe one day
you'll grow up enough for someone to let you use theirs.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Most ISPs give you some webspace for free with your account.